The real reason behind the confiscation of my passport

Moazzam Begg reveals why the British government has been continually harassing him since his return from Guantanamo, and took his passport for the second time in eight years.

In the summer of 2012 I wrote about the first of my two visits to Syria to investigate leads into cases of British and American complicity in the rendition of terrorism suspects to the regime of Bashar al-Assad[1].

This followed on from something I learned first-hand from CIA and US military intelligence agents who threatened to send me to Egypt or Syria if I failed to co-operate with them during my time in the Bagram prison. I made British MI5/MI6 agents, who were present at every leg of my unlawful imprisonment, fully aware of these threats[2]. Their response was that I had to co-operate with their US counterparts.

On my eventual return to the UK from Guantanamo, along with three other British citizens I received a letter from the Home Office informing me that my ability to apply for a passport had been restricted by the Home Secretary under the powers of the ‘Royal Prerogative’[3].

Having returned from three years of separation from my loved ones, spent mostly in solitary confinement and after suffering the effects of regular human rights violations, I didn’t challenge the decision immediately. Instead, I tried to rebuild my lost connection to a traumatised family, including a son I’d never seen.

UK torture complicity

As part of my work for CagePrisoners, however, I soon began campaigning for prisoners detained at Guantanamo and others held in secret detention sites or who had disappeared after being rendered to countries like Libya[4], Egypt, and Syria. We conducted numerous investigations[5] into recurrent reports of extreme torture carried out by the Syrian regime and discovered the complicity of the governments of the US, Canada, France, Sweden, Germany, Denmark and Britain.

I was also constantly being invited to speak all over the world about issues pertaining to Guantanamo, torture, the rule of law and the war terror. Thus, in 2009 I mounted a successful challenge to get my passport back.

My subsequent extensive travel abroad was greeted simultaneously by meetings with people in power[6]—including unexpected praise[7] from US ambassadors in Luxembourg—to armed police escorting me off planes in order to deny me entry to Canada[8] (where I’d gone to meet with Canadian rendition victims sent to Syria).

Returning to the UK airports was often an ordeal in its own right as I would be stopped almost every time and questioned under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This happened even on visits to Brussels where I was invited to speak at the European Parliament by British MEPs as well as trips to Malaysia where I had been giving evidence in war crimes tribunals[9] set up by the former prime minister there. Often British police would ask me if I had gone to these places to further my claims about British complicity in torture.

During this period three very important things happened which I believe the British intelligence services have been unable to recover from:

1. A major civil action was taken by 16 former Guantanamo prisoners against the British government and intelligence services for complicity in torture and false imprisonment.

2. Prime Minister David Cameron ordered a judge-led inquiry to be launched into allegations that the UK was complicit in torture

3. The Metropolitan police began a criminal investigation against British intelligence services into recurrent allegations of complicity in kidnap, torture and false imprisonment

In 2010 we won an out-of-court settlement[10] against the government after it was compelled to hand over documents that showed how British government ministers had decided we should be consigned to Guantanamo, despite evidence of mistreatment.

At the end of the discussions with the government the then Justice Minister, Kenneth Clarke QC, sat with us and listened. Several of the world’s supposedly most dangerous terrorists sat in a room with a senior Tory minister discussing the previous government’s wrongs. I handed Clarke a copy of my book hoping there might be some proper understanding after this but, all the while the government was preparing the Justice and Security Bill[11]—which was passed as law earlier this year—that would ensure damaging and embarrassing civil actions such as ours would henceforth be heard in secret under colour of ‘national security concerns.’

The inquiry into torture by Sir Peter Gibson was shelved last week in favour of the Intelligence and Security Committee but in his interim report Gibson concluded that MI5 had at best ‘turned a blind eye’[12] to our abuse.

The criminal investigation is still on-going but I have sat for hours with the Metropolitan Police giving testimony to them about what happened in Bagram and Guantanamo and, they have gone to meet with rendition victims in Libya[13] and continue to investigate the claims of Shaker Aamer[14] who has been in Guantanamo without charge for twelve years.

Last year several former Guantanamo prisoners, including me, met with Asa Hutchinson, who had served as US Undersecretary for Homeland Security while we were captives. In a report by the Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment, which included him and two former senior US generals, the practice of torture by the US administration was described as “indisputable”. The report[15] also stated bluntly that our treatment and indefinite detention was “abhorrent and intolerable”. There was also no escaping the fact that the British government had colluded in sending and keeping us there.

Visiting Syria

Following the uprisings of the ‘Arab spring’ I was able to make several visits to the Arab world and follow up cases of rendition, including the shocking case of a man whose tortured false testimony[16] was used as a justification by both the US and UK to invade Iraq.

In July last year, I visited Syria where I met numerous former prisoners who had been held by the Assad regime as well as a few victims of US and UK rendition. One of the men, a Libyan who had resided in Syria, had been rendered to Libya after a phone call by a British Libyan dissident had been intercepted by MI5 and its contents disclosed to Assad’s Mukhābarāt (intelligence agency). Documents[17] found in the headquarters of Gaddafi’s Mukhābarāt after the fall of Tripoli clearly prove British involvement.

A few months later, in October 2012, I was called by an MI5 officer who said they wanted to talk to me about my views on the situation in Syria after having read my article[18]. I told them that they must be aware that I was investigating several leads regarding British and American complicity in rendition and torture in Syria. They called back after consulting with their lawyers and said they understood that and would still like to meet. I agreed to speak to them and meet at a hotel in East London. Both MI5 and I had our lawyers present.

MI5 was concerned about the possibility of Britons in Syria being radicalised and returning to pose a potential threat to national security. I told them that Britain had nothing to worry about, especially since British foreign policy, at the time, seemed in favour of the rebels. At the end of the meeting I was assured by MI5 that my proposed return to Syria to continue my work would not be hindered, and it wasn’t.

Subsequently, I travelled to Syria without incident. I spent much time accumulating testimony and information for a report on the situation of the current prisoners as well as the accounts of those who had been detained and tortured in the past. I witnessed the squalid refugee camps, I visited the wounded, young and old, some of whom I buried, I saw the carnage of Assad’s killing machine and I saw the beautiful young faces of children aged beyond their years. I witnessed the harsh winter and saw farmers chop down their olive trees to warm themselves and I heard the horror stories of torture under the rule of both Bashar and Hafiz al-Assad. However, I also saw aid coming in from all over the Muslim world which included British ambulances, British fire engines, British garbage disposal trucks; British aid centres and hospitals with British doctors (one of whom was killed[19] saving lives a few months ago) and volunteers from Britain’s Muslim community. And yes, there were some British fighters too. I do not believe any of them posed any kind of threat to the UK.

I returned home without hindrance, except for the customary Schedule 7 stop. I was briefly questioned about my visit by border police and returned home shortly after. I came back ‘radicalised’ enough to speak at numerous events for various charities working out in Syria. I also conducted interviews[20] with people on the ground that are close to the fighters to answer questions about any tangible threat to the UK to help allay the fears of the British public and intelligence services.

Schedule 7 stops

Since then I have been ‘randomly’ stopped[21] more times than I can recall under Schedule 7 while travelling.

The last time this happened, last month, I was en route to a conference[22] in Turkey about the mass-imprisonments and torture occurring in Egypt following the military coup. British police suggested that I might be going to Syria, despite showing them details of itinerary and return flights for the following weekend.

I was made to miss my flight but the police were prepared to rebook me for the next available one meaning that they were neither preventing me from going to Turkey, or even potentially to Syria. I refused their offer as I would have had missed the conference by then and opted to returned home. However, they took possession of my iPad and phone and kept them for a week. Both items contained sensitive information and documents pertaining to CagePrisoners’ investigations on both complicity in torture and responses to the British government’s measures in tackling extremism.

In anticipation of future harassment at airports I began legal proceedings to challenge the constant harassment at airports under Schedule 7 and informed the Home Office, the border police and British airports about my intended travel via my lawyers. We received a response from their lawyers, which acknowledged the letter but did little else.

Change of language

The language and attitude of the British government has steadily changed towards the Syrian opposition especially since much of it has openly chosen an Islamic path, something the west has been unwilling to engage with and unprepared to accept. Britain went to war based on the falsehood that Iraq may have possessed weapons of mass destruction. Clear evidence of the use of chemical weapons, in addition to over 120,000 dead through the use of conventional ones in Syria has not elicited any such response, and most people are grateful for it. No one wants to see British involvement in Syria, especially the Syrians who know well what happened next door in Iraq.

As a result, however, the Assad regime is now regarded as the better of the two choices. That is why last month the decision to stop[23] even non-lethal aid for western-backed factions in Syria was taken by Britain. But, despite there being no evidence of a tangible threat from British fighters returning from Syria (the contrary[24] in fact) and certainly not the type that might have been posed from the same in Iraq or Afghanistan because of the presence of British troops, the government now wants to remove not just the passport but the nationality[25] of Britons suspected of being involved in fighting in Syria. The government’s myopic insistence on this point cannot fathom that this is simply about Syria, not Britian. The counterterrorism industry, it seems, has too many vested interests for the language to be tempered with reason.

Instead of easing the arduous journeys for the numerous convoys leaving with aid from Britain for Syria every month, border authorities detain the aid workers for hours on end—both on exit from and re-entry to the UK. On several occasions volunteers have been turned back, vehicles confiscated and money and goods collected by the community for the beleaguered Syrian people seized.

Britain has refused[26] to take any Syrian refugees despite the unprecedented crisis facing millions fleeing the war. It also did next to nothing for the British Muslim Dr. Abbas Khan[27] and has been heavily criticised for shirking its duty regarding one of its own citizens while he was horrifically tortured and murdered.

Simply speaking, the British government has lost all touch with the reality on the ground and the enormous sentiments in the Muslim community, and beyond, regarding the Syrian conflict.

Losing my passport – again

After a trip to South Africa[28] last month—which had coincided with the funeral of Nelson Mandela—where I spoke extensively about the complicity of the British government in rendition and torture, I was met upon arrival at Heathrow by officials who served me with a notice to seize my passport under the ‘Royal Prerogative’ stating that it was assessed my previous visits to Syria had constituted involvement in terrorism. No explanation other than that was given.

I am certain that the only reason I am being continually harassed—something that began long before any visit to Syria—is because CagePrisoners and I are at the forefront of investigations and assertions based on hard evidence that British governments, past and present, have been wilfully complicit in torture.

How logical is it to stop me from travelling anywhere in the world simply because they want to prevent me from going to Syria? Numerous British citizens have been prevented from entering Turkey (the key entry point to Syria) at the behest of the British authorities. They could have done the same with me.

It is these government-shaking issues that are the real reason why I have been continually harassed and targeted by the authorities in this country. I am not and never have been in anyway a threat to them, unless words seeking accountability are a threat.

At a time when Islam and the Muslim community is facing an unprecedented attack via politicians, the media and ultimately some sections of the public susceptible to this onslaught, it has been the aim of CagePrisoners and myself in trying to empower the community that is being purposefully undermined.

The struggle for reason and justice is clearly a longer one than I once imagined but since our aim is a good and just one, I do not believe our detractors will succeed.

11 comments

i am finally glad to see Muslim’s raise their voices against terrorism…..as far as torture i am sure you will list lemon chicken….might be also nice if you would denounce the misogyny at Gitmo concerning female guards….then denounce those in the streets of London demanding Sharia Law which is nothing more than the Christian Inquisition….we have moved on, we even now have this thing called equality in voting and wages, amazing isn’t it

I’m also “finally glad” that you see Muslims “raise their voices against terrorism”, maybe you can spread the word and encourage others to also.

I’m a bit confused as to what you think of “Sharia Law”… You seem to be glad that English law has eventually incorporated parts of sharia already (as you mention with regards to equality in voting and wages), even if it took 1400 years and counting for us over here to catch up. Why do you see it as a ‘Christian inquisition’? The highest authorities in the Church of England have praised ‘Sharia Law’ for decades since they warmed up to those ideas.

When did sharia introduce universal universal suffrage in elections for the government, Rich? Or do you mean something else by ” equality in voting”? Just which of the “highest authorities in the Church of England have praised ” just which aspects of “‘Sharia Law’ for decades”?

Well, despite none of this being a secret (as a simple Google search will prove), I will answer just in case any open minded and genuinely curious individuals are reading this. “When did sharia introduce universal universal suffrage in elections for the government” – This goes back to the core different between European notions of leadership/governance (the divine right of kings, the “gods'”representative on earth, etc—Authoritarian structures of concentrated power like a pyramid) and eastern models, such as the Arab notion of bay’a (a transaction between two parties, in this case the leader being a pragmatic way of representing the wishes of the led), and no doubt other models existing pre-Islam. If by suffrage you mean simply political franchise, then this was obvious in Islam’s adoption of the bay’a model for electing representative and accountable leadership (a.k.a. Caliph/Khalīfa), and explicit examples go back to the appointment of the third Caliph, Uthmān b. ‘Affan, where ‘Abd al-Rahmān b. ‘Awf was sent to get the bay’a of women, in the year 23 AH / 643 CE. This was just an extension of the prophetic model, where the prophet Muhammad would take bay’a from women too (such as the second pledge of al-‘Aqaba just before his migration), where the only difference was women did not hold his hand but pledged verbally.

The only way of arguing with this is changing the goal posts and saying something like, “No, by suffrage I mean a vote in a secular neo-liberal capitalist system,” or other such arguably un-Islamic unjust models of disenfranchisement marketed (incorrectly) as ‘democracy’. In which case, go ahead.

“Just which of the “highest authorities in the Church of England have praised ” just which aspects of “‘Sharia Law’ for decades”?”

I was referring to a string of successive Archbishops of Canterbury praising the values of the Sharia, which are now accepted by them or wider British society—an example is political enfranchisement of the masses as mentioned above. Others include its famous protection of religious minorities, gratefully incorporated (albeit incompletely yet) into western political philosophy. Yet others include the sharia being the earliest known system of law to ensure the equality of all races. The list goes on. Your shock and horror is understandable, as Rowan Williams said in his (in)famous speech—met with a probably similar horror and outrage to yours from the tabloids—that much fear and anxiety of the term ‘Sharia’ is derived from its ‘primitivist’ application in some contexts. Something tells me writing this was a waste of time, but I hope you can prove me wrong.

You have a curious – and very limited – idea of “European notions of leadership/governance” if you restrict it to “the divine right of kings, the “gods’”representative on earth, etc—Authoritarian structures of concentrated power like a pyramid”, a controversial theory which was only put forward for a very short time. It ignores the long history of the state and the ruler requiring the assent of “the people”, which goes back to preChristian times. As for “Authoritarian structures of concentrated power like a pyramid”, surely that is a perfect description of the caliphate’s claim to be “god’”s representative on earth”. Indeed, islamic political theory – with its acceptance of the right to rule of usurpers and tyrants and the duty of obedience of muslims to them – accepts the “right” of rulers to be regarded as god’s chosen. All of the examples you cite as instances of political franchise are from the early caliphs (it’s interesting that you omit Muawiya, who seized power by coup and civil war, as an example) and shows them being accepted by ruling elites. The ruled – even the subordinate members of the ruling elites – were not consulted. There’s also the question of just how long anyone who doubted their right to rule would have remained in the elite, or even alive. How are universal suffrage or secular democracy, compared to those methods “disenfranchisement” or “unjust”? “Un-Islamic” I would agree with, but it looks as if you think only what you define as “islamic” methods of governace count as just in your eyes. Just which Archbishops of Canterbury praised “the values of the Sharia”? Rowan Williams merely pointed out that some aspects of sharia reflected British law and argued that “individuals might choose in certain limited areas whether to seek justice under one system or another”, as long as the conclusions reached were acceptable under British law. In short, it didn’t matter what they called it as long as they reached the right conclusion. The current archbishop, Justin Welby, on the other hand, specifically excludes sharia: “I think … that no system of law can come in under any circumstances that contradicts the basic principles of English jurisprudence.” As for islam’s infamous protection of religious minorities – a small number of religious minorities – as long as they accepted “with humiliation” their inferior status and paid protection money, fortunately that has had no influence on contemporary society and certainly isn’t “incorporated … into western political philosophy” – though the case for requiring muslims to pay to be tolerated is amusing to contemplate. Contemporary political philosophy adopts the Roman attitude exemplified by Gallio who famously “cared for none of these things”. Which are the political philosophers who “include the sharia [as] being the earliest known system of law to ensure the equality of all races”? They obviously don’t know much history. Aside from the fact that the proclaimed superiority of muslims completely undercuts the claim, the Romans, for all their other faults, permitted anyone to become a citizen and treated all citizens equally. “Much fear and anxiety of the term ‘Sharia’ is derived from its ‘primitivist’ application in some contexts.”= Well, of course: many of the greatest enthusiasts for sharia are attracted by its primitivist aspects, the prospect of imposing mutilation and torture on people whose sexual tastes they do not share, or of killing people whose opinions they do not like seems to be the thing they find most attractive about their fantasies of sharia. They also seem to think it’s what other people would most like about it too. Perhaps your version of sharia does not include torturing adulterers to death or killing so-called blasphemers, but if that is so, you really should make it plain that what you aspire to bears no – or very little – resemblance to the sharia most muslims praise.

It seems you interpreted ‘prove me wrong’ out of context and, instead of proving I didn’t waste my time (as usual) rebutting smokescreens, you tried to literally prove everything I said as wrong! No matter how farfetched/bordering on superstitious your argument.

You obviously have a whitewashed view of European history, thinking that when those savages who roamed from one continent to another enslaving, pillaging and exterminating inferior races, due to their freedom from tedious things like morals and ethics, they were somehow ‘democratic’ because they would give their fellow nobility some rights!

You ignore the actual explicitly stated doctrines and bureaucracy (leaders literally being called ‘sons of gods’) of Europe going back to antiquity, instead innocently thinking the ‘assent of the people’ refers to anyone outside the white, male land owners. How cute…

And you ignore the explicitly stated doctrines of the caliphate system but rather skip to individual occurrences of where people didn’t follow it, somehow trying to smear the actual enlightened system. This white supremacist hypocrisy aside, I do like it when people try and criticise a perfect system because when it is not followed it leads to problems. I bet you didn’t even realise the implications of your rant.

And you are, right on schedule, going to call this ‘muslamic supremacism’ or something equally stupid to try and somehow legitimise your own white supremacy… But that you think choosing to follow a set of clearly, objectively enlightened principles regardless of your race, somehow goes against the doctrine of equality of races, is something that doesn’t even deserve another response, even in jest.

Everything else you said was the same old recycled red herrings and mistranslations/lies that I have personally addressed here before, let alone the other troll hunters. Not going to waste my time.

Assalamualaikum-wa-Rahmatullahi-wa-Barakatu, My Dearest Brother Moazzem, your detailed account of the HARSH WAYS THAT US MUSLIMS are going through is nothing short of the persecutions of our cousins-The Innocents jews suffered at the hands of the most evil of person-Hitler. From what I can remember, of years gone by, my upbringiing, my friends from school, college, colleagues at work and from my time in England which is HOME to my family and myself, I cannot have any complaints of the way my life has shaped. Being a believer in the TRUTHFULNESS, PEACEFULNESS of ISLAM, I just cannot and suppose will never find the TRUE REASONS for LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS being Targetted only because a very very small group of so-called believers causing lots of damages. There are also others who infiltrate this Peaceful Religion with their own agendas. Nowadays anyone with a name pronounced as a Muslim name is likely to be in trouble. The fight as far as I see it is not just- about Females having the same Rights as Males, the wearing of Jilbaab, Hijaab or Niqaab, but something even worst than anything anyone can imagine. Where once I felt comfortable on the streets of this country, am not so much now. The PLAN forward is to bring THE PROPER WAY OF LIFE reaching everyone willing to know about the TRUE ISLAM, not to look anywhere else. I am sure that majority of people are aware of this very Famous saying which goes like” IT’S BETTER TO KEEP OUR OWN HOUSES CLEAN RATHER THAN BLAMING OTHERS FOR NOT LOOKING AFTER THEIRS”. EDUCATION, EDUCATE AND EDUCATING OR COMING FORWARD NEEDING TO BE EDUCATED IS THE BEST OPTION, to UNDERSTAND REAL PEACE. MOAZZEM BHAI, IT’S OKAY TO CONCENTRATE ON OTHER COUNTRIES WELFARE, I BELIEVE THOUGH THERE’S LOTS AND LOTS OF WORKS TO BE DONE AMONG THE MUSLIM POPULATION IN THE UK- WHICH HAS PROVIDED US WITH A LOT. ENDING WITH A HEART FULL OF HOPE FOR A BLESSED PEACEFUL LIFE TO EVERYONE. APOLOGIES IF I’VE OR SOUND UNFAIR TO ANYONE. MINE IS AN INDIVIDUAL POINT OF VIEW WHICH I SEE AS BEING OF HOPEFULLY BRINGING PEACE TO ONE AND ALL.

Sorry to upset the gullible people out there, but in inner city B’ham in the 90’s Mr. Begg along with others that have been arrested abroad were known as Wahabi/Jihadis, not only supporting Taliban bloodshed especially against shia muslims but also going out there to help them to kill all those who opposed Wahabi/ Deobandi version of religion. It really is sad to see how many people have been duped ! People should do some serious investigation before showing such support for certain individuals.

I must confess to noticing people who are strangely dressed, my eyes being habituated to rural England, but I am pretty sure that my reaction to apparent outsiders, an ancient human trait, is a huge distance from the racist phobia that seems to permeate the British government.

Your reaction to their treatment of you impresses me. The British government seems set on making enemies, and I see some uncomfortable echoes of the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War. That’s a complicated issue, I don’t want to read too much into the comparison, but the Generals’ Rebellion was backed by big-money interests, and those interests are just as involved in today’s politics.

And what they do is unreligious, whichever path you follow. They don’t even listen to their own religious leaders, which rather shows how much value to give to their oaths of office. Sometimes, they seem to treat democracy as a sort of magic. “Black Magic is a question of symbolism and intent.” What sort of spell are they trying to cast?

Salaam Moazzem, the harassment you have experienced and the foreign policy stance towards Syria affects all British Muslims as we are all considered potential terrorists unless we support whatever approach the government decides to pursue. The British government needs to understand that harassing and detaining people like yourself and criminalising those who simply disagree with them creates a backlash and it is this repressive approach that radicalises people. Please add something to your article about what you think British citizens from whatever background can and should do to speak out against these policies.